62 Chevrolet, STILL No Traction

[SSDiv6]

Put the ballast forward from the axle centerline.

[Dave Goob Cook]

Check out these lower control arm brackets from LMPerformance, maybe you can fab up something like them.....

http://www.lmperformance.com/5502/73.html

Other manufacturers have similar products.....

TRZ for one.

BMR http://www.bmrfabrication.com/products.htm

[Aubrey N Bruneau]

Thanks Dave...
however, the rules don't permit ANY modification of ANY of the suspension attachment points, other than raising the location of the upper mount on the housing ( you CAN re-enforce to make them stronger, but that's all ).

oh THAT, Jeff... yes, I've read that only 1,181 times !
In the spirit of the rules, and their intentions... reasonable thought concludes that that "rule" applies to open wheel cars... or maybe somebody trying to put weight up inside their wheel well !
I copied this setup on my car, from a VERY experienced, knowledgable Stock class racer, running what I believe was a 428 Shelby. He's been through tech a couple times.

Yes, Div6, I've been told to go a little ahead of the rear axle. All moot if the car has no initial hook though.

[Dave Goob Cook]

Darn it!!

I always thought that as long as the parts were "bolt on" they were Stock legal, as my Southside Machine bars are supposed to be......they have the same bolt in lower bar rear bracket, legal as long as you don't weld 'em...??????

[Aubrey N Bruneau]

Oh, it IS frustrating, Dave !
But that's why I chose Stock. The car is very near rust free, original paint... EXTTEMELY valuable body style. Would not choose a class that requires a bunch of modifications ( IE, Super Stock ).

I have one other question for the rear-coil-spring guys...
I have a too high in the rear problem. Springs are relatively stiff. I can correct the ride height by shortening them, and keeping the rear "well sprung". Or, I can replace them with a much softer set ?
My experience when putting in the softer springs, was that it DID get the lower control arms at a better angle, but resulted in a COMPLETE loss of any form of traction whatsoever. ( this was before I raised the mounting point of the upper arms ).

I'm attacking the ride height today. Have a few options... soft springs by far the easiest.

[Mike Pearson]

Use the spring rate that wil get you to the correct ride height. the springs only hold the car up. The fact that you had better results with a stiff spring prove that the suspension geometry in the car is way out of the ball park. I suggest that you get a magnetic protractor from your local tool or hardware store. Once you have lowered the back of the car then Jack the front of the car up until the rocker panel is perfectly level. Then place the protractor on the lower link bar if the lower bar is lower in the front than at the rear end your problem will be solved. If you can not get any down angle then you could drill a new hole in the rear bracket higher than the original hole. The whole key is the correct geometry and the shock package. You need shocks built specificly for drag racing. double adjustable on all 4 corners. Loose is for slick tracks and tighten up as the conditions will allow both front and rear. With your large displacement engine it makes alot of HP and torque. The chassis will have to be set up nearly perfect before you will be happy. I have built several cars for super stock and all have been set up by this method with excellent results.

Mike

[Bob Gullett]

Aubrey, are you going to be in Medicine Hat for the open in 2 weeks?

[Aubrey N Bruneau]

Thank YOU, Mike... some excellent general advice for this newbie !

Yes, Bob, that's what I'm trying to do... but MAN, I've never seen so many things go wrong in my life !

[Jeff Lee]

Originally Posted by NHRAstocker409

Thanks Dave...
In the spirit of the rules, and their intentions... reasonable thought concludes that that "rule" applies to open wheel cars... or maybe somebody trying to put weight up inside their wheel well !
I copied this setup on my car, from a VERY experienced, knowledgable Stock class racer, running what I believe was a 428 Shelby. He's been through tech a couple times.

I wouldn't count on that...
The rule book is specific. It does not differentiate fron one form of race car over another.
You'll eventually learn that the NHRA policy is that getting something thru tech on one occassion does not constitute allowance if later detected.
Now all those "experienced 428 Shelby racer's" can thank you when they get extra scrutinty next time they go thru tech!

[Aubrey N Bruneau]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lee

The rule book is specific. It does not differentiate fron one form of race car over another.
:

HEEE HEEE !
"The rule book is specific.... it does not differentiate... "
sounds like JUMBO SHRIMP to me !
HEEE HEEE !!!!

But sreiously... when you search through "General Regulations", and find the specs permitted on something like a rear wing .... because it does not come out and say it's on the back of an altered or dragster, does that mean it also applies to a Stocker ? !

I'm out for the day tomorrow, but I'll get to the bottom of this on Thursday.